Speaking very roughly, just to get started, realism holds that ...stuff... is independent of what we say about it; anti-realism, that it isn't. — Banno

Is it that anti-realism applies to ethics and aesthetics because we seek to make the world as we say, while realism applies to ontology and epistemology because we seek to make what we say fit the world? — Banno

Is it that anti-realism applies to ethics and aesthetics because we seek to make the world as we say, while realism applies to ontology and epistemology because we seek to make what we say fit the world — Banno

Is it that anti-realism applies to ethics and aesthetics because we seek to make the world as we say, while realism applies to ontology and epistemology because we seek to make what we say fit the world? — Banno

I suspect all anti-realism comes back to realism or is based in realism. — tim wood

If the morally real is out there, where is it? — Hanover

"Stuff", because the content makes a difference. — Banno

Is it that anti-realism applies to ethics and aesthetics because we seek to make the world as we say, while realism applies to ontology and epistemology because we seek to make what we say fit the world — Banno

I suspect all anti-realism comes back to realism or is based in realism. — tim wood

Presupposes it, no? Otherwise, "anti-realism" is not anti- anything — 180 Proof

Realism is wrong to the degree it neglects that all such speech acts have some pragmatic purpose. — apokrisis

Very interesting, thanks. — darthbarracuda

Strange to posit a psychological basis, implying a subjectivity even in the theories we choose. — Hanover

"the false can be true" — Hanover

Speaking very roughly, just to get started, realism holds that ...stuff... is independent of what we say about it; anti-realism, that it isn't. — Banno

According to evolutionary biology, Homo Sapiens is the result of billions years of evolution. For all these thousands of millions of years, our sensory and intellectual abilities have been honed and shaped by the exigencies of survival, through billions of lifetimes in various life-forms - fish, lizard, mammal, primate and so on - in such a way as to eventually give rise to the mind that we have today.

Recently, other scientific disciplines such as cognitive and evolutionary psychology have revealed that conscious perception, while subjectively appearing to exist as a steady continuum, is actually composed of a heirarchical matrix of thousand, or millions, of interacting cellular transactions, commencing at the most basic level with the parasympathetic system which controls one’s respiration, digestion, and so on, up through various levels to culminate in that peculiarly human ability of ‘conscious thought’ (and beyond!)

Consciousness plays the central role in co-ordinating these diverse activities so as to give rise to the sense of continuity which we call ‘ourselves’ - and to the apparent coherence and reality of the 'external world'. Yet it is important to realise that the naïve sense in which we understand ourselves, and the objects of our perception, to exist, is dependent upon the constructive activities of the mind, major aspects of which are unconscious.

When you perceive something - large, small, alive or inanimate, local or remote - there is a considerable amount of work involved in ‘creating’ an object from the raw material of perception. Your eyes receive the lightwaves reflected or emanated from it, your mind organises the image with regards to all of the other stimuli impacting your senses at that moment – either acknowledging it, or ignoring it, depending on how busy you are; your memory will then compare it to other objects you have seen, from whence you will (hopefully) recall its name, and perhaps know something about it ('star', 'tree', 'frog', etc).

And you will do all of this without you even noticing that you are doing it; it is largely unconscious.

In other words, your consciousness is not the passive recipient of objects which exist irrespective of your perception of them. Instead, your consciousness is an active agent which constructs reality partially on the basis of that sensory input, but also on the basis of unconscious processes, memories, intentions, and so on. And this is the sense in which idealist philosophy does indeed recieve support from modern science.

So, it's content that makes up stuff, yes? But, then we have facts and some kind of coherentism in how they can find their use in language, yes? — Shawn

I wrote this on the old forum and you more or less harrumphed at it: — Wayfarer

realism holds that ...stuff... is independent of what we say about it — Banno

realism holds that ...stuff... is independent of what we say about it — Banno

So, the role of the mind in creating the world should have some bearing on that, ought it not? — Wayfarer

If 'every X' is all that is dependent upon M,
then M is not a member of 'every X';

if M is not a member of 'every X',
then M is not dependent upon M;

therefore, M is R;

and therefore, (at least) 'some ~X' are R.

Why should the choice be exclusively one or the other? It seems plain that we both create and discover stuff. — Banno

realism holds that ...stuff... is independent of what we say about it
— Banno

So, the role of the mind in creating the world should have some bearing on that, ought it not? — Wayfarer

an object from the raw material of perception.

What is it in the account that you gave that you take to be incompatible with realism? — Banno

Is the mind creating it (like an artist), or is the mind discovering it (like an explorer)? — Merkwurdichliebe

This "raw material of perception" exists regardless of what we say about it correct? — khaled

When you perceive something - large, small, alive or inanimate, local or remote - there is a considerable amount of work involved in ‘creating’ an object from the raw material of perception.

It's not one or the other. Both come into play. — Wayfarer

how much of reality is created, and how much is discovered? — Merkwurdichliebe

Can't you see how the account I gave of how 'mind constructs reality' conflicts with 'realism holds that ...stuff... is independent of what we say about it'? — Wayfarer

I'm not following that. Anti-realism presupposes realism? Why? On one side we have that stuff is independent on what we say or think, on the other, that stuff is not dependent on what we say or think. How does stuff being dependent presuppose it not being dependent? — Banno

If 'every X' is dependent upon M,
then M is not a member of 'every X'

SO science is discovers, ethics created? And we can work our way on from there.

But to make the job more interesting, language is created, yet is used to talk about what is discovered. I suspect that might have something to do with Hanover's position. — Banno